The ACB's View on Zimbabwe...

ACB comment on Zimbabwe and the ICC Cricket World Cup
Australian Cricket Board - 30 December 2002

The Australian Cricket Board (ACB) has reiterated that it plans to discharge its International Cricket Council (ICC) contractual obligations to play a fixture against Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe as part of the 2003 ICC Cricket World Cup.

ACB Chief Executive Officer James Sutherland said Australia is scheduled to play six games in the World Cup preliminary round schedule in February and March, with five games in South Africa and one, on 24 February, against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe's second largest city.

"Our long-standing position as cricket administrators has been that we will go to Zimbabwe unless there are safety or security risks," said Mr Sutherland.

"I was part of the recent ICC delegation which inspected safety and security issues in Zimbabwe and the ACB supports the subsequent ICC report finding that safety and security arrangements are appropriate."

this issue has made the headlines with John Howard getting into the act!!!! not being too backward at expressing my opinions on such issues, and at the risk of offending / upsetting some of the sensitivities of our more tender members / visitors, my response is as follows.......

basically the whole situation pisses me off no end, both the ACB, the ICC & the situation in Zimbabwe!!!! If this thread had not already been here I was going to raise this issue tonight!!!!:!( :!( :!(

I heard a statement today from I think it was the ICC, saying that they are unable to boycott Zimbabwe on political reasons as they do not have a mandate to do so, only where player's safety issues are involved! There was also mention of contracts, financial payments etc......

my response to this is CRAP!!!!

From what I understand of the two situations the only major difference is that we have a black majority government doing it to a white minority population, & the reports re human rights breaches do not end with the white minority population!!! So is 'pay back' ok or is it fine if this is done by a majority population so long as it is black???? This is racism & smacks of 'white flight' mentallity!!!!!!

the precedent is already there re the boycott / expulsion of SA!!!! IMO as a result of the SA precedent there should not be ANY matches played in Zimbabwe by ANYONE, not just the Aussies!!!! Furthermore I see no reason why this action should stop at the WC, and not be continued as for the SA precedent!!!

Shades Of Gray....

Just found a transcript of an interview with ICC Chairman Malcom Gray which was shown down here last night....It is taken from www.abc.net.au

I await your comments as always...

Eyes..

==============================================

Transcript
30/12/2002
Shades of Gray

MARK BANNERMAN: It should be cricket's finest hour. The world's top teams vying to become international one-day champions. But less than six weeks before it's due to start, the cricket World Cup is already mired in controversy.

The issue? Should the International Cricket Council allow six World Cup matches to be played in strife-torn Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister John Howard says no and today he made it clear he wants the ICC to reconsider its position.

Meanwhile, key members of the Blair Labour Government in Britain are urging their team to boycott matches in Zimbabwe. The ICC, though, says its game is cricket not politics. Malcolm Gray is the president of the International Cricket Council and I spoke with him earlier today.

MARK BANNERMAN: Malcolm Gray, Can we get a few things straight, perhaps. Do you and the International Cricket Council believe fundamentally in democracy and the rule of law in a country where cricket is played?

MALCOLM GRAY, PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL: Well, Mark, we don't have the mandate to make judgments about such things.

MARK BANNERMAN: But nevertheless, do you believe in that?

MALCOLM GRAY: As an individual, obviously one does. But as I said, we as an institution don't make political judgments. It's up to the politicians to make those sorts of judgments.

MARK BANNERMAN: Even in situations where - and you would have read these reports - that there are farm labourers who are being attacked by mobs, they are being beaten senseless, their wives are being raped and this all occurs in front of their children.

Now, that's pretty disturbing, isn't it?

MALCOLM GRAY: Well, those sorts of reports are no doubt studied and researched and obtained by the various foreign affairs departments of the various countries that are participating and it's up to them to make judgments on those reports and for the politicians to act upon them.

As I've said, the ICC is not a political organisation, we have a wide diversity of political views across our membership. We are there to administer and manage and promote the sport. It's up to government ministers and governments to make political decisions and then stand up and act upon them.

Now, it is often the case, not just in cricket but in sport, and you can go back through all sorts of sport, go to the Moscow Olympics, etc, where the politicians tend to try and push their political judgments on to the sporting bodies.

For a whole range of reasons they don't want to be seen to be making those judgments. It is their job, it's their responsibility, they have the mandate to do it and they should exercise it.

MARK BANNERMAN: OK, fair enough. So John Howard today has said the government in Zimbabwe is completely illegitimate, undemocratic, it's stolen democracy, and he wants you to reconsider your position on this.

Will you do that?

MALCOLM GRAY: No, we won't consider the political matters. As Prime Minister, John Howard obviously does have the right and the responsibility to make such comments, and to assess those situations.

As people that administer the sport and administer cricket, we don't have that right or responsibility.

MARK BANNERMAN: What happens if he blocks that tour? What will happen to the Australian cricket team?

MALCOLM GRAY: What would happen if Australia doesn't play there - and this is the same with any team - for political reasons, the consequences that would flow from that, providing it is judged to be safe and secure at the time of the match, is that they - Australia wouldn't get any points, Zimbabwe would get the two points, there may be - there is likely to be obviously commercial, financial consequences from our sponsors, our commercial partners, the television companies.

Those compensation matters would flow, and decisions would have to be made as to the size of them, and where they should lie as to whether Australia will need to be paying them.

MALCOLM GRAY: Well, yes, it is an unfortunate position, but that's the facts of life. There are lots of moral judgments made obviously that have financial and other consequences.

MARK BANNERMAN: But you seem to be washing your hands of what is going on in this country and you're saying that if a team does make a moral stand it gets punished by the ICC?

MALCOLM GRAY: It's not a case of washing one's hands. It's a question of division of duty and division of responsibility. Our duty is to the sport, our duty is to the safety and security of the people involved in that sport.

Our duty is not to make political judgments. The division of duty is quite clear, whereby that responsibility is the government's.

MARK BANNERMAN: Where does money come into this? If Australia didn't go and play those matches, or Britain, or did England didn't play those matches you'd lose a lot of money. So is money talking here or morality?

MALCOLM GRAY: No, money is certainly not talking here.

MARK BANNERMAN: Are you telling me you wouldn't lose money?

MALCOLM GRAY: No, from a money point of view, the ICC would want the matches to go on. If the matches don't go on, obviously there will be financial consequences. Those financial consequences will eventually lie either with Australia or whoever it is that makes that political decision not to go, or it will be spread across the membership.

MARK BANNERMAN: Let's set money and morality aside, and let's look at the image that will be conveyed if the cricket teams get there. Inevitably the media will follow and hopefully they can report on what they see in Zimbabwe because they haven't been able to up until now.

You'll see cricketers, people sipping champagne, playing games, meanwhile we've got famine and we've got destitution. It's not a very good image, is it, for cricket?

MALCOLM GRAY: That's not up to me to judge, and if you're talking about image -

MARK BANNERMAN: But it must be, mustn't it, with respect?

MALCOLM GRAY: You have to look at other involvements around the world. And let's focus on Zimbabwe for a moment. Zimbabwe played in the Commonwealth Games in Manchester only a few - a short time ago. You shouldn't be singling out cricket.

MARK BANNERMAN: So finally then, what we have really is two governments basically saying they don't want their teams to play there, but the matches will go ahead to all intents and purposes? You see no way this is going to change?

MALCOLM GRAY: No, providing safety and security is the same as it is today from our reports - the matches will be scheduled. It's then up to individual governments, if they want to make decisions not the allow their teams to go, for them to do it.

And again if you look at the teams that are playing there, you've talked about two governments, that happens to be Britain, the English government and the Australian Government.

However, Pakistan, India and Namibia, Holland, they're all playing there, and I would think you might find that those governments don't make the same decisions and those people from those countries would be equally as cross with me as maybe you and the Australian people are.

MARK BANNERMAN: Malcolm Gray, Not me, but we do appreciate you giving us the time. Thanks for coming on.

This issue was also subject on national talkback radio yesterday, with the host of the show very concerned about the stated positions of the ACB & ICC. Most of the callers seemed to be against playing the matches in Zimbabwe & supportive of a boycott, with the concensus being that the current actions of the Mugabe Govt is worse than those taken by the SA aparthied boycott situation, and not just because of the recent land issues.

One thing the host said was that he would like to see the players come out as individuals despite the position of the ACB & ICC - i.e. rather than the politically correct BS that Waugh gave in his interview, the players (as the role models they are) would stand up & be counted by refusing to play!!!!

Today the question as to whether the AUS team should play is the subject of a poll on one of the major IP home pages for the major TV network that provides coverage for all the Aussies international matches & most other sports events.

The thing that is really starting to get on my wick about this issue is that the politicians are trying to use cricket to do their dirty work. They are calling upon their cricket boards & the ICC to boycott Zimbabwe, yet are not prepared to take any direct / independant action themselves - I have not heard anyone say anything about any Govt taking steps re expulsion of ministers or tade / economic sanctions or any protest to the UN etc!!!!!

I still hope that the cricket WC brings this issue to the fore of the general public, and that further action outside the instigation of the cricketing bodies is taken!!!!

Originally posted by anzac
[B]The thing that is really starting to get on my wick about this issue is that the politicians are trying to use cricket to do their dirty work. They are calling upon their cricket boards & the ICC to boycott Zimbabwe, yet are not prepared to take any direct / independant action themselves - I have not heard anyone say anything about any Govt taking steps re expulsion of ministers or trade / economic sanctions or any protest to the UN etc!!!!!

I completely agree with you here.

It's completely pathetic that the Governments won't take any action anywhere else, but expect the cricket teams not to play there.

Take the ECB for example - They will have to pay compensation if they don't travel (as the Government wish), however the Government won't pay this compensation. So that would be left to the ECB, to come out of spending on the grass roots of the game in the UK.

It's completely pathetic that the Governments won't take any action anywhere else, but expect the cricket teams not to play there.

Take the ECB for example - They will have to pay compensation if they don't travel (as the Government wish), however the Government won't pay this compensation. So that would be left to the ECB, to come out of spending on the grass roots of the game in the UK.

This, for want of a better word, is stupid.

I agree but remember this is the ICC we're talking about...there's not a lot that they usually say that makes sense!!